The jury decided that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't copy any Apple patents, but the judge upheld the ban for now

Samsung has been through quite an ordeal with Apple regarding patent lawsuits, and it doesn't look like things are getting any easier -- especially for the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Federal Judge Lucy Koh, who is presiding over the Apple/Samsung patent case, ruled on Monday that the ban on Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 will not be lifted despite a recent jury decision.

Back in August, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reached an unfavorable verdict for Samsung, saying that the South Korean electronics maker was guilty of violating technology patents. In other words, most of Samsung's smartphones and tablets in question were found guilt of copying Apple's iPhone and iPad designs.

However, one glimmer of hope for Samsung was that the jury also ruled in favor of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, which was banned June 26 by Koh for infringing on Apple patents. The jury decided that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not violate these patents afterall.

As a result of this decision, Samsung asked Koh earlier this week if the preliminary injunction could be lifted. Koh gave a big fat "no," saying that it wouldn't be appropriate to lift the ban now that the case is going before an appeals court. However, she did give Samsung the option to re-address the issue later in her courtroom.

Samsung and Apple are set to meet again December 6 for other post-trial motions.

The Apple-Samsung patent war began in April 2011 when Apple claimed Samsung was an "iPhone, iPad copycat." More specifically, Apple said Samsung's Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G and Nexus smartphones infringed on Apple's patents.

Apple worked pretty hard to ban Samsung's smartphones and tablets around the world, and successfully accomplished this in countries like Germany and Australia. Samsung launched a few lawsuits of its own regarding 3G patents, and was also able to lift the ban on its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia in December 2011. However, Samsung wasn't so lucky in Germany, where the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is still banned.

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban is currently in review at an appeals court. Koh just said that until that appeal is heard she's not making any ruling at all on that device. Legally she just ducked the question. She really didn't make a ruling -- just a deferral. She stated that after the appeal has run its course Samsung can come back to her and ask for a lift of the ban -- something that may happen under the appeal anyway.

Koh has repeatedly throughout the Samsung/Apple case done everything she could to reduce her workload. She's limited discovery. She's limited filings. She even limited the instructions to the jury. If she could avoid work, she's done it.

As this was a trial by jury, I don't see how Koh has much to do with the outcome of this case. The damages (1.1B) are actually a fraction of what Apple originally wanted, but now I hear they want the damages tripled.

A judge sets the tone, and establishes the rules, for any court in which they preside. This judge prevented some evidence from being admitted, that could have changed the jury's decision, had they been able to view it. And we're not talking weird, off the wall stuff, either, but the type of evidence that has been used in the past to defeat charges of copying patents/ideas.

Don't be surprised when this entire deal is overturned, in Samsung's favor.

quote: This judge prevented some evidence from being admitted, that could have changed the jury's decision, had they been able to view it.

1. Judge prevented Samsung from introducing prior art evidence/arguments because they missed the filing deadline.2. Judge prevented Apple from introducing evidence/arguments that Samsung destroyed evidence because it would prejudice the jury.3. Apple claims it took there Engineers several years to come up with icon design and certain software features (bounce back).4. Samsung claims they purchased an iPhone, took it apart, examined it, and then had one of there Engineers work for 3 months on the interface design which just so happens to resemble the iPhone design, but Samsung swears to god with there fingers crossed that they didn't copy.

Right, I absolutely agree, the Judge was totally biased against Samsung. I mean, when Google tells Samsung your shit looks too much like Apple, when you have internal memos from Samsung engineers and management that says your shit looks too much like Apple, when Samsung testimony comes out that they did in fact study the desgin and interface of the iPhone, the court decision had absolutely nothing to do with evidence that was provided. The prior art claim/argument would have totally nullified all the evidence that was presented.

When microsoft tried to include its own web browser with its OS the government went after them for monopolistic tactics. Apple got multiple competitors devices banned! They tried to patent the concept of an app store. But yet The government ignores them. Too busy selling guns to mexican drug lords, and creating oppressive regulations involving forcing you to purchase healthcare I guess.

Where is Apple's factory in the US? Where is Samsung's? Also, the federal court above her made her actually take the case. She tried to toss it out of her courtroom way back when. Apple has some deep pockets. Oh well.

When it comes down to which company pays more corporate tax in the United States, it is clearly going to be Apple. Even with Samsungs mobile and entertainment business, they are a fraction of the size of Apple. Over the past 5 years, Apple profit margins have been triple those of Samsung.

So there is some favoritism, clearly shown by ITC, Customs, and the FCC.